trc (02/25/83)
Response to Jeffrey Soreff: There cannot be any force in a free market - by definition. Jeffrey gives an example of a worker threatened with firing, when he would starve if fired. First, would you also oppose workers striking in order to gain concessions in an manner? Most socialists see nothing wrong with that. Secondly, conditions must be extreme before such a case could even come about. I object to Jeffery's "Lifeboat-ethics" methods - he chooses only an extreme situation to test - does this mean that he thinks socialism can only be justified in certain infrequent and odd circumstances? I believe that the most important test of a system is whether it stands up under normal life situations. Socialism fails there. And to directly address the example, while the employer would be within his rights, there is nothing nothing in capitalism that demands that employers be cruel or mean. If the employer feels it is right, he might aid his employees in rough times, in hopes of having their loyalty when he has troubles. And if he is mean, the employees will probably quit once hard times are past, and he will have a harder time hiring new workers. Capitalism does not mean that one is not responsible for ones actions, or for the side effects of ones actions. Quite the opposite, under capitalism, it is wrong to harm others for any reason. Socialism allows individuals to be harmed "for the greatest good of the greatest number". The issue of air pollution and other abuses of "free" things can be handled under capitalism. Consider how a person who set traps on public sidewalks would be treated. It is not that person's use of the sidewalks that would be criminal, but the harm (or threat of harm) caused by the traps. The same is true of pollution. As with all free things, air can be taken and possessed, so long as no harm is caused to others. Jeffrey's final point was that the value of life could just as well result in a right to protection by the community. The flaw here is that it is not "LIFE" as an abstraction that is valuable. It is that ones' OWN life is valuable to ones' self! It is possible that others' lives can be valuable to one, but only indirectly, and such value should never be taken against the will of the other. There is no way to derive from ones own love of life that others MUST live for you (at least not for a rational person who realizes that others love their lives equally.) And finally, let me address a pet peeve - Jeffrey mentions the "extreme simplications" of Ayn Rand. Perhaps he feels that simplication is a vice. In fact it is not. The primary difference between humans and animals is that humans can form and use abstractions, which are by their nature simplifications. Simplicity is something scientists strive for in their theories. There seems to be a "cult of complexity" in our society - anything simple must be overly simple. If it doesnt cover all cases with equal ease, it must be wrong even for those it does. If its is complex, it must be right, or at least, someplace within its diversity, contain some truth. - I say this is mental and moral cowardice. Tom Craver houti!trc American Bell
mmt (02/27/83)
Various contributors to this quasi-religious discussion suggest that we look at the results of capitalism and socialism. Perhaps it would be a good idea to do that, in respect of countries where the two kinds of government alternate. From my reading of the situation, Conservatives get in, ruin the economy, and then lose an election to the Socialists, who are shot at by all the businessmen until they sort out the economy and are then replaced by the Conservatives at an election, to start the cycle over again. More seriously, there are many overriding factors beyond type of government that determine a country's economic health. Fifty percent of the variance is determined by the amount of money invested in research, for example. That means that all other factors COMBINED cannot have any greater effect than the amount invested in research. Why was the US so successful after WWII? I guess it was not because of Capitalism, but because of all the scientists evicted from Europe by Hitler, or who came to assist in the research effort against Hitler. Why is the US now declining? Because Nixon started to cut back on research funding, and Carter was unable to bring it back up as he had proposed. What will happen now? Abrupt decline because Reagan is cutting back even more. It isn't Capitalism. There is no real incentive for a small company to invest in research, because no-one knows where the real benefits will appear. The more basic the research, the longer the gamble and the more dramatic the results when it pans out. Government has to support basic research, large companies can afford mission-oriented research, and small companies can afford development. Of course, small companies that do buck the odds successfully and win from basic research get to be big companies quite quickly, but they were probably naive and lucky. Basic research benefits us all. Development benefits whoever does it. Martin Taylor